Madhya Pradesh Court January 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Brajlal Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Writ Petition No :: 3928 / 2013 Brajlal Sharma and another versus State of MP and others 07.01.2014. None appeared for the petitioneRs.even when the case is taken up in the second round. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Petitioners have retired from service. It is their grievance that their GPF claims have not been settled. Petitioner No.1 is said to have retired on 30.4.1998 and petitioner No.2 on 31.7.2001. It is stated that an amount of `1,24,312/- is available in the credit of petitioner No.1 and an amount of `27,701/- alongwith missing amount of `28,435/- is available in the GPF credit of petitioner No.2. It is stated that as the respondents have not settled their claim inspite of repeated representations, this writ petition is filed. Keeping in view the nature of grievance made by the petitioneRs.it is thought appropriate to direct respondent No.4 to look into the grievance of the petitioners and settle it in accordance with law. On the petitioners filing ...
Dr. Gaurav Jateley Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
M.Cr.C.No.1550/2013 7.1.2014 Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, G.A for the respondent/State. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally. The applicant has preferred a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings of FIR registered at Crime No.520/2012 at Police Station Kotwali Mandla, District Mandla for offence punishable under Sections 201 and 193 of I.P.C.The facts of the case in short is that during the investigation a Crime No.44 of 2011 was registered at Police Station Maharajpur. Dead body of the deceased Duja Bai was sent for post mortem. The applicant along with one Dr. Dubey performed the post mortem and provided sealed viscera along with sealed slide of vaginal swab to the Police which was duly seized on 13.3.2011 by Sub Inspector Ashok Singh Parihar. After due investigation the charge sheet was filed. The learned FiRs.Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in judgment dated 29.12.2011 convicted the culprits for o...
Smt. Madhu Kukku Alias Kukku Vs. Dhara Chand Sravgi Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
W.P.No.18968/2013 07/01/2014 Shri A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri M. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents. The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed questioning the legality of the order passed on 8/10/2013 in Civil Suit No.106-A/2009. By the impugned order application of the petitioner/defendant filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected. The contention of the petitioner/defendant is that while rejecting the application, learned Court below has not addressed the same on merit in the context of Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reasons assigned for seeking adjournment of the proceeding (which has been rejected).has been taken as a ground for rejection of the application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that as a matter of fact the application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC lacks in material particular and di...
Vishal Nikhare Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
1 Writ Petition No.21874/2013 Writ petition No.21969/2013 07.01.2014 Shri Mohan Sausarkar, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Shri V.S.Shroti, Senior Advocate with Shri Ashish Shroti, Advocate for the respondents. Heard counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is essentially in the context of questions no.19, 20, 32, 45 and 72 of the question paper. According to the petitioners the model answer in respect of question no.19 was no inherent jurisdiction. However, according to the petitioners the correct answer ought to be no territorial jurisdiction. To examine the correctness of this submission we deem it appropriate to advert to question no.19 which reads thus :- 19. Under C.P.C.a plaint can be rejected; where the suit is instituted in a Court having __ . Four options have been given against this question, viz. i) no inherent jurisdiction, ii) no pecuniary jurisdiction, iii) no territorial jurisdiction, and iv) all of the above. The grievance of the petiti...
Om Prakash Gaur Vs. Central Bank of India Judgement Given By: Hon'ble ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
W.P.NO.21549/13 07/01//2014 Shri Rajeev Barkur, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the appellate authority as contained in Annexure P-4 dated 24-03-1999. There is an inordinate delay of more than 15 years in filing the writ petition and in para-4 of the writ petition, it is mentioned by the petitioner that there is no delay in filing of the writ petition. This is not correct. The delay for more than 15 years is not explained by the petitioner. The petitioner was working in the respondent/Bank as clear and it seems that because of his unauthorized absence from service, vide Annexure P-1 dated 15-09-1997, his services were terminated after charge sheet was issued to him and departmental inquiry was conducted . Challenging the termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the year 1998. When the appeal was not decided, he approached this court by filing W.P.No.4765/98 and vide order dated 25-01-1999 passed b...
Smt. Anjana Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
1 W.P.No.14897/2013 W.P.No.14897/2013 07.01.2014 Shri O.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner. Ms.Vandana Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for respondent/ State on advance notice. Heard on admission. This petition is directed against order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar; whereby, an appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 24.05.2011 passed by Collector, Panna has been dismissed. By order dated 24.05.2011, Collector, Panna has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 which in turn was directed against the appointment of petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarta, ward No.09, Janpad Panchayat, Pawai and has directed for fresh appointment as per the scheme. That, in pursuance to Women and Child Development Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh circular No.F-3-2/06/50-2 dated 10.07.2007 recouRs.were taken to by the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Pawai for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta for ward No.09...
Nizam Singh Vs. Smt. Beni Bai Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri Justice ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Second Appeal. No.909/2013 7/1/2014 Shri B.P.Sharma,learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on admission. This second appeal at the instance of plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.6.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No.25-A/2012 by the Second Additional District Judge, Sagar; whereby, the judgment and decree dated 6.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Deori, District Sagar, dismissing the Civil Suit No.29-A/2008, has been affirmed. Suit by the appellant/plaintiff was for declaration that the defendant no.2 being not his son, he is not entitled for maintenance and succession in his property. The suit has been filed on the ground, that the marriage between the plaintiff and respondent no.1 was solemnized thirty years ago and a daughter was born out of said wedlock. However, due to strain relationship, the marriage with respondent defendant no.1 dissolved as per custom prevalent, on 24.5.1985. That respondent/defendant no.1 thereafter started living separately. ...
Rajneesh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement G ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
W.P.No.5349/2013 07.01.2014 Shri Gopi Chourasia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by a decision rendered by this Court in W.P.No.9634/2013 decided on 12.11.2013. The only difference between the two petitions is that the present petition is with respect to the consideration of claim of appointment of petitioner as Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-II, whereas the decision rendered in the case of Kamlaker Sen versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others was with respect to the appointment on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade-III. However, it is pointed out that the circular issued by the State Government, which has been interpreted by this Court is squarely applicable for the Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade I,II and III. It is seen that the issue raised in the case of Kamlaker Sen (supra) was considered by th...
ishwar Navthre Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh Judgement Given By: Hon ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
W.P.No.15269/2007 07.01.2014 Shri Sourabh Sunder, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Kumresh Pathak, Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/State. I.A.No.2522/2013, I.A.No.16420/2012, and I.A.No.13902/2011 All the above said applications be treated as disposed of, as the documents referred to therein have already been considered. Heard counsel for the parties. Only three issues have been raised in this Public Interest Litigation. The fiRs.issue is about the non-availability of Blood Bank in the Burhanpur Government hospital. This issue already stands redressed as the Blood Bank has been established in the said hospital. The second issue is about the inaction of the Government to fill the vacant posts of doctors in the same hospital on regular basis. Indeed, the Government was resorting to appointments of doctors on contract basis. The recent affidavit filed by the State Government discloses that 80% of the vacant posts have been filled in, in combination of regular and contract basis....
Jagdish Vs. Deependra @ Deepak Yadab Judgement Given By: Hon'ble Shri ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Writ Petition No.14261/2013. 7.1.2014. Shri V.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.K.Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Shri T.S.Lamba, learned counsel for respondent no.3. With consent, matter is heard finally. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of In- dia, is directed against the order-dated 4.7.2013; whereby, Ad- ditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maihar Distt. Satna (for short 'the Tribunal') has rejected the application preferred by the petitioner to examine the doctor on commission. Claim case preferred by the petitioner is in respect of in- juries sustained in a motor-vehicle accident on 2.12.2010 caused by the offending vehicle Bolero Jeep No.MP-20-VA-0681 at Village Ghunwara Tahsil Maihar District Satna. For the injuries sustained by petitioner, he was treated by one Dr. Naveen Kothari. Petitioner applied for examination of Dr. Naveen Kothari on commission. The application was al- lowed; however, on the date i.e.28.4.2013, when ...
- ‹ Prev
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- Next ›
- Last »